A live report from the 2005 US National Conference and General Conference.
Written, with occasionally annoying commentary, by Steve Dennie, UB Communications Director

Wednesday Afternoon

Page 3. 1:30 pm

The bishop is getting the meeting going again. He said people had asked him when the new bishop assumed office. Paul said the transition day is August 15.

Alcohol Stand

This should be fun. We've been arguing about loosening up the alchol stand since 1993. "Loosening" may be the wrong word. We've had a stand which says anyone who takes even one sip of wine, once a year at a family gathering, can't be a United Brethren member. That goes way beyond any biblical injunctions, and it has been a legitimate problem in many churches (including my own). So we want to change the stand to say that we teach abstention, but don't require total abstention of members.

Gayle Ruble Sr. is at the microphone. He made a joke--as I predicted long ago that someone would--about white smoke going up to announce the new bishop. Then he talked about the alcohol stand. He wanted us to make a really strong stand against alcohol. With that in mind, he offered this recommendation from Mid-Atlantic.

Here's the whole current statement on alcohol:

Alcoholic beverages are injurious and at the core of significant social problems. The manufacturing, vending, and use of alcoholic beverages are contrary to the best interests of personal and social morality, economy, and welfare. Therefore, the Church of the United Brethren in Christ, USA, stands in opposition to the alcohol industry and advocates abstinence by all people from using alcoholic beverages in any form, except as a medical prescription.

Furthermore, the church believes that even the moderate use of alcohol by believers undermines our efforts to oppose the alcohol industry and may be a stumbling block to others. Members of the Church of the United Brethren in Christ, USA, are to abstain from the use of beverage alcohol of any kind. They are expected to oppose the manufacture, sale, and consumption of alcoholic beverages. They are not to be involved as a direct investor, manager, or owner (full or partial) of businesses which engage primarily in manufacturing or selling alcoholic beverages. Neither should members lease or rent property to those who would use it primarily for manufacturing, storing, or selling these harmful beverages.

He proposed this replacement for the last three lines:

Replace with (changes in bold): "The Church of the United Brethren in Christ believes, and experience demonstrates, that the use of alcoholic beverages is harmful to our physical bodies and is a detriment to the best stewardship and witness of our lives. Therefore, we strongly urge all of our members to avoid using alcoholic beverages in any way. We also strongly urge our leaders to teach as well as counsel about the hazards of using alcoholic beverages and that deliverance is possible through the ministry of the Spirit."

Dan Paternoster spoke passionately against this, arguing (as he has in numerous other settings) for taking a scriptural stand, rather than keeping a rule that goes beyond the Bible.

Dave Rawley said we need a statement that goes beyond, "Don't abuse it."

An amendment was made to change the word "use," in the first line, to "abuse."

Dave Bell (Sandusky) said he's not so quick to assume that the Bible says there's a good use of alcohol. He says it's a matter of interpretation to say that the Bible allows for the moderate use of alcohol. He says it's not correct to say we can't biblically defend total abstention as a requirement. He says it can be defended.

Paul Fetters (Central) rose now. His first time during the conference. He didn't like all the "strongly's" used. He said it sounds like we're saying, "I dare you, and now I double-dog dare you." He suggested ending the statement by removing the final sentence. That sentence is, "We also strongly urge our leaders to teach as well as counsel about the hazards of using alcoholic beverages and that deliverance is possible through the ministry of the Spirit."

They took a vote. The new bishop, Ron Ramsey, is voting to strike that last sentence. My fellow elder at Anchor UB, Russ, is voting the other way. I have no opinion. The result: Yes--22, No--28. So Paul Fetters' motion to amend was defeated.

Ted Doolittle moved that we remove the word "strongly" in the two places where it is used. Strike the dare and double-dog dare. He says it'll be easier for him to "urge" than to "strongly urge" people to abstain.

Dave Rawley (Mid-Atlantic clergy) wondered what difference this makes. People pointed to the use of the words "using" and "abuse."

The amendment to remove "strongly" passed, 34-20. Now Ron Ramsey and Russ Baker are voting together. Again, I have no opinion. At least, no strong opinion.

Roger Burk (Michigan) wanted to remove a few more words: the word "in any way" at the end of the middle sentence. That would allow for some legitimate medical use.

Anthony Blair said, "I mildly urge that we not do that."

Dave Rawley says there's a difference in his mind between medical use and beverage use, and that this statement is talking about beverage use. He says the statement has nothing to do with medical use.

Todd Palmer (Michigan lay) says he uses a little bit of beer to kill slugs. That it works real well. "Are you saying I can't use beverage alcohol to kill my slugs?" There was some laughter. "It's true," I heard someone say, who apparently also knows the anti-slug wonders of beer.

Dave Rawley says that if your slugs are members, keep them off of it.

The motion passed to remove those words.

Here comes Paul Michelson. He used a big word that I can't spell, and then meandered into some other thoughts. Dan Paternoster disagreed with those thoughts, whatever they were. And the debate moved along, unchanged.

Lester Smith wanted clarification on the wording of the last sentence, to make sure we're consistent. Earler in the paragraph, we used "abuse," but only "using" in the last sentence.

Russ Baker moved to change the word "using" in the last sentence to "abusing."

Lester Smith likes that. He says he doesn't want to have to, as a pastor, counsel people against taking a social drink.

The vote was close, or at least sounded close. The many hands raised right now tells me that the "no" contingent was speaking considerably louder than their numbers merit. The motion passed 34-23.

So here's where we are right now. The statement, as amended multiple times, states:

"The Church of the United Brethren in Christ believes, and experience demonstrates, that the abuse of alcoholic beverages is harmful to our physical bodies and is a detriment to the best stewardship and witness of our lives. Therefore, we urge all of our members to avoid using alcoholic beverages. We also urge our leaders to teach as well as counsel about the hazards of abusing alcoholic beverages and that deliverance is possible through the ministry of the Spirit."

Bishop Hirschy called for the question. All in favor? The amendment passed on a strong voice vote. Now we're back on the motion as amended.

Tom Brodbeck moved to amend the statement to say, "Local congrgations shall retain the freedom to continue prohibiting the use of alcohol by their members if they so desire." There's an interesting idea.

Daryl Elliott (Mid-Atlantic) says he understands the intent, but he's against it. "What happens if a congregation wants to go one way, but the pastor wants to go another." Hmmm. There's a zillion issues on which a pastor and congregation might disasgree.

Duane Huerlein (Michigan lay) doeesn't want to create a possibly divisive issue between pastor and congregation.

Lester Smith wonders what happens with members who join a church--very commmitted people--who don't have that conviction that abstinence is required in scripture. What happens when they transfer to a church which has this requirement of its members?

Tom Brodbeck said that the alcohol issue is more of an issue in some portions of Central Conference than other issues, like the local church covenant. He is bringing the proposal on their behalf. He also noted that churches have differing requirements regarding other aspects of membership, and that his understanding is that we're offering churches freedom to set standards higher than the denominatinoal standards. "We let the church make that call," he says. Pretty compelling argument. If a church in southern Ohio wants to require abstention, why not let them?

He added that right now, we have a strong membership standard, but churches are writing their own standards that are more lax than what is in the Discipline. That has less integrity, in his mind.

The motion lost on a fairly strong voice vote.

Tom Datema (Central clergy) wanted to change the opening words from "Alcohlic beverages are often personally injurious...." to "The use of alcoholic beverages...." So we're making it clear that an inanimate object isn't to blame, but how we use it in our lives. It passed unanimously. Way to go, Tom!

Lynn Mefferd (Central clergy) is opposed to changing our current stand. "I believe that even one drink can be detrimental. I have the question before me, published by an insurance company, 'Having just one drink can't make a difference, can it? It sure can. Driving requires precise physical skills, and even one drink affects you physically..." He continued reading. It could also be an argument for taking a denominational stand against using cell phones while driving.

He gave some instances from scripture where people weren't allowed to drink. "We're dealing with an issue where we're lowering a standard. I realize there are many people who do not hold that, but as United Brethren, I would like to see us maintain our stand."

This could be closer than I thought. I really thought the alcohol stand would sail through, that we were ready for it.

Bishop Hirschy called for a vote. The revised statement passed on a strong voice vote. Total abstention is no longer a requirement of membership.

Open Theism and Inclusivism

Yesterday, we approved the work of the National Board. Well, that would include some strong restrictions on ministers. So a motion was made to reconsider the action yesterday--we're doing a lot of reconsidering--to consider these lines regarding the statements adopted on open theism and inclusivism.

Implications for Ministers, Churches and Denominational Agencies

1. That no ministerial candidate holding positions different than those expressed above be approved for licensing or ordination in the Church of the United Brethren in Christ, USA.

2. That no minister holding positions different than those expressed above be approved for conference use (supply or placement) in the Church of the United Brethren in Christ, USA.

3. That no associate ministry staff holding positions different than those expressed above be employed by congregations of the Church of the United Brethren in Christ, USA.

4. That all currently licensed/ordained ministry personnel should be required to affirm United Brethren positions on divine foreknowledge and the destiny of the unevangelized.

The Discipline Revision Committee said we should approve the statements on those two issues, but not the "implications" above. The exact recommendation reads: "That the US National Conference approve the statements adopted by the 2002 US National Board regarding Divine Foreknowledge and the Destiny of the Unevangelized, but that it not approve the 'Implications for Ministers, Churches, and Denominational Agencies.'"

Daryl Elliott asked, could a new UB minister begin teaching or publishing on open theism? How do we prevent that?

Tom Brodbeck says we would handle it the same way we would with any other issue of heresy or doctrine contrary to the UB church. Why single out this issue, he asked?

Anthony Blair rose to speak against the motion, because he wants the entire statement--not only the implications, but the two statements--to go away. He says we're making doctrinal requirements beyond what is in the Confession of Faith. He referred to the section on "Official Doctrinal Standards" (which would be the logical place to put these statements, if we put them anywhere). Since 1981, that section has had just one statement: on "Depravity." And it has stuck out like a sore thumb, he said. He doesn't want us to be introducing theological statements beyond what the Confession of Faith contains.

Paul Fetters, who wrote the Depravity statement, spoke next. He told how he presented a paper and wrote a paragraph for the Discipline, but would be happy for that to be removed if it would also keep out the statements on Open Theism and Inclusivism. So he moved that we delete the Depravity statement. He says he's very much against those two new statements.

That's out of order, at least for now. It's not the motion on the floor.

Dave Rawley asked where it would go in the Discipline. The statements would probably go in the Official Doctrinal Positions sections, but he's not sure where the Implications would go.

Paul Fetters returned. He moved that we delete the two statements, which would be all of Report 56, which gives the two statements plus the Implications.

Bob Eberly wondered why the statements would need to go in the Discipline. He understood the problems with the Implications, that those had Discipline implications, but thought we could just not do anything further with the two statements.

Dave Riddle (Michindoh clergy) spoke against deleting the three statements.

The vote was close. So hands go back up. Doesn't look to me like it will pass. Right. It loses, 30-25.

That puts us back on the DRC's recommendation, to approve the two statements, but not the Implications. Dr. Dowden said, "As you know, this represents a lot of blood, sweat, and tears in our institution." He said he remembers thinking, two years ago, that if Dr. Sanders left the denomination, we would forget all about it. He said he doesn't agree with the whole statement, but feels it speaks to the integrity of our denomination--that we were adamant about not wanting a professor to hold these views, but we're not willing to hold our pastors to the same standard.

Anthony Blair prefaced by saying, "I have a feeling I'm going to lose this one." He said he understands the context in which the statements were written, why we felt the need to say something, and that part of our culture, heritage and rules is to have a Confession of Faith that we can't change. He says we're writing doctrine here, and if we want to have doctrinal statements beyond the Confession of Faith, you should write a referendum and go through the process needed to revise the Confession of Faith.

Dr. Fetters is back. He feels strongly about this. "Since my lonely paragraph in the Discipline may have company, I'd like to protect my neighborhood a little bit." He asked, Can we still amend the statements before we put them in the Discipline? He's correct--before the statements wold go in the Discipline, they would be fair game for amending.

Tom Datema says he's against the motion, because he wants to see it all thrown out. Which I guess is what Paul Fetters was arguing for. He's assuming that if we approve this, it'll go to the conferences, and they'll need to use it as a guideline for interviewing new ministers. He does agree with Dr Fetters. We need to be very slow when we move on these types of things. He says that when people look at the Depravity statement, they don't see a statement as much as they see an event that happened in our past (another situation involving a Huntington College professor).

Jim Kendall agrees with Dr. Dowden on the issue of integrity. But if it's not in the Discipline, where does it end up?

Tom Brodbeck stated that the only thing we have to keep something alive as a living reality is the Discipline. If it's not there, it might as well not exist (he implied).

"Are these statements binding?" asked Paul Michelson. "Would current ministers be grandfathered in?" Should a standard for a college professor also be a standard for a UB minister? If not, why not? I'm adding a bit to the words of Dr. Michelson, who normally is not in need of adding-to.

My goodness, we're a whole lot more tangled up in this than I ever anticipated. The recommendation seems rather straightforward to me. It seemed that way when I wrote it, too. Look at all the confusion I've caused! For shame!

The motion is being divided. Bishop Hirschy is proposing that we first vote on the statements, then on the implications. "So Dr. Fetters, if you don't like the statements, now is the time to speak."

Fetters: "There is really only one statement I do not agree with." He references the last sentence of the Inclusivism statement: "We reject a broad application of 'inclusivism' that makes possible salvation via a limited understanding of God. All people are lost sinners (Romans 3:23) needing salvation during their lifetime through Jesus Christ (Romans 10:14-15; Hebrews 9:27)."

The motion passed.

Now it's a vote to approve the two statements, as approved. There were only a few no votes, so it carried. The statements are approved. Now: what about the Implications? The DRC is recommending that the Implications not be approved.

Luke Fetters says he'll vote against removing the Implications, because removing them would seem to say that the National Board acted inappropriately. "For us to go back on these four items and say we believe the National Board acted inappropriately in bringing these implicatinos to bear, I'm not willing."

All in favor? Opposed? The Implications remain in place. Now, how do we implement them?

A vote is taken to approve the work of the National Board. It passes. So all of that discussion was basically a waste.

3:15 pm. Break time.

Go to Wednesday, page 4.